Well in that case you accept the principle that there is a distinction to be made between immigrants of different races. It's just that you set the parameters differently.

Hope no-one labels you a nazi or a red

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proud Son Of Britannia

Well, I would favour immigration of British-descended Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians in that case then and they would be the first in the queue. Infact, I would place white Afrikaaner South Africans in a higher position in that queue than Poles ect. Personally, I don't feel I have have much in common with Poles or other Eastern Europeans. I don't wish to see a Slavic and Catholic majority 'Britain'.

Presumably I have converted from Neo-Nazism to Marxism-Leninism in the last five minutes!

Mind you, Tovaritch, it would be an odd kind of Nazi who took the view that no real racial difference exists between German and Slav . . .

BTW, which of the counts in my indictment of NG do you believe is ill founded, or do you say that even well founded criticisms should not be uttered if they harm "the party" (a Communist view) or "the Leader" (an, er, Nazi view!)?

So you are all in favour of mass Polish and other Eastern European immigration then? Well, I can see why you think that being as you live in the hellhole that is Londonistan nowdays but those of us who still live in British parts of the country like I do would like it to stay that way even if it means you are deprived of your supplies of Polish bread and other Polish delicacies.

Well in that case you accept the principle that there is a distinction to be made between immigrants of different races. It's just that you set the parameters differently.

Hope no-one labels you a nazi or a red

Yes, obviously, even a small number of blacks or asians pose immense difficulties due to their race 'integrating' which is something Enoch Powell alluded to in his famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech which I have in my signature compared to a larger number of whites but that doesn't negate the fact there are cultural differences between whites and hence a large number of Poles in Britain wouldn't assmilate (why should they?) and thus change our culture over time. From a racial point of view, they would be more acceptable but that doesn't mean that they don't pose problems for our society still.

No, I called him a Red because as far as I can see 99% of his posts constantly attack Mr Griffin and the BNP and offer no constructive comments about the party whatsoever. When somebody engages in that then making an assumption he is a Red is a reasonable one.

So you cannot accept that a nationalist could be fundamentally opposed to Nick Griffin. You assume that only a Red could view Mr Griffin as personally corrupt, intellectually shallow and factionally malign.

In that case you must think there are an awful lot of reds about among Mr Griffin's former friends and allies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proud Son Of Britannia

Immigration is still unaccceptabe even if it is white. I really can't see any reason why you don't think this is so.

I've already mentioned one simple reason. There has been a time in the past (immediately after WWII) and there could easily be a time in the future (e.g. when the election of a nationalist government had precipitated the flight of many non-whites and that government planned the phased repatriation of the remainder) when some measure of immigration was or would be required to fill a labour shortage.

Australia for example required immigrants but imposed a White Australia policy. Are you suggesting that this policy was either unnecessary, nazi or "red"?

From a racial point of view, they would be more acceptable but that doesn't mean that they don't pose problems for our society still.

Do you believe that the 200,000+ Eastern European immigrants in the 1940s posed problems in any way comparable to the West Indian immigrants who arrived shortly afterwards, even during the time when there were smaller numbers of those West Indians?

No, but the present wave of Poles and other Eastern Europeans are causing difficulties with regard to employment, wages, and yes even criminal offences. Also, they are changing the culture of the places in which they are congregating. In short therefore, they are causing many of the problems uncontrolled immigration brings and their immigration here is not wanted, not needed and should be stopped. Do you agree or disagree?

Mass immigration of British-descended Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians wouldn't bring as many problems (although they would still bring some re space being at a premium on this tiny island) as the Eastern Euros are doing as their culture is virtually the same as ours. They would integrate as soon as they touched-down at Heathrow.

So you cannot accept that a nationalist could be fundamentally opposed to Nick Griffin. You assume that only a Red could view Mr Griffin as personally corrupt, intellectually shallow and factionally malign.

In that case you must think there are an awful lot of reds about among Mr Griffin's former friends and allies

I've already mentioned one simple reason. There has been a time in the past (immediately after WWII) and there could easily be a time in the future (e.g. when the election of a nationalist government had precipitated the flight of many non-whites and that government planned the phased repatriation of the remainder) when some measure of immigration was or would be required to fill a labour shortage.

Australia for example required immigrants but imposed a White Australia policy. Are you suggesting that this policy was either unnecessary, nazi or "red"?

Australia had a perfectly valid and decent reason for opening its doors and one which has NEVER applied in Britain ie that of being a relatively underpopulated country needing new people to increase its GDP. This is now no longer the case which is why Australia now has a very selective 'points system' with regard to SKILLED immigration.

You are a Red, Mr Ritchie, so your criticisms of Nick Griffin are simply not valid and never will be.

No, but the present wave of Poles and other Eastern Europeans are causing difficulties with regard to employment, wages, and yes even criminal offences. Also, they are changing the culture of the places in which they are congregating. In short therefore, they are causing many of the problems uncontrolled immigration brings and their immigration here is not wanted, not needed and should be stopped. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree that the present pattern of Eastern European immigration has caused terrible problems, not least in holding down wages for many of our poorest paid Britons.

But I think it is wrong for a nationalist party automatically to react to white immigrants in the same manner as alien immigrants, which is how this discussion began IIRC.

Australia had a perfectly valid and decent reason for opening its doors and one which has NEVER applied in Britain ie that of being a relatively underpopulated country needing new people to increase its GDP.

So there are times when to a greater or lesser extent a country needs immigrants, and it is valid for that country to pick and choose the racial types of immigrant it prefers. That was my point.

As proven earlier in the thread, there was a time when Britain needed immigrant labour, and even the political mainstream then accepted that it would be better for those immigrants to be white Europeans.

Similarly, many British nationalists today would I'm sure prefer a hypothetical BNP government to expel the descendents of Jamaican immigrants now dominating Moss Side and Handsworth, and to whatever extent necessary accommodate white European immigrants in their stead.

I think it is a duty of a nationalist party to point out the dangers and problems associated with mass immigration without regard to race as if it doesn't then it hard to discern what nation that party is supposedly protecting.